# data[].attributes.body
I've voted 'yes', as this is not a bad place to start. Where tax-payers are involved in funding the actions of a public body, there is a fair-minded belief that a average reasonable citizen would be able to form a view based on the bones of decisions being made about how their money is being spent. Much like the legal system relying on the concept of 'reasonableness', the pub test assumed fair-mindedness, but there are limits to the pub test because of that. Over specialisation and professionalisation of niche topics can stray further from the core ethics of fair decision making, as group-think from those insiders can become morally blind to the society in which the results of their decisions will be felt. The pub test connects the wider picture together where the tendency can be towards isolation and dissociated self-serving morality. On the other hand the pub test does require translation. At some level, highly ambiguous specialised language/systems that complicate the core foundation of decision-making at an ethical level must be translated for intended meaning. In many way, 'Integrity' is needed to service a fair translation just as much before presenting scenarios to the 'pub'.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Pub test: yes it should but is it really?

# data[].attributes.subject
The Pub test: yes it should but is it really?

# data[].attributes.body
The pub test represents the challenge of submitting a governance question into a more popular (based of the word population and not today's meaning) environment to double check the impact an idea would have. When technically it would be ideal to check all social, legal, business etc decision at a pub where everyone could be represented, it would not be really feasible. That is why most of the political structures have been established using the people's votes and elections, in order to ensure that everyone has a voice. However nowadays, it really feels like that businesses have a more represented voice in such institutions and it would be appreciated if the rest of the population were more consulted and therefore if the pub test was more considered when making decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the pub test remains appropriate in today’s governance environment because it acts as a practical safeguard against decisions that may be technically compliant yet socially unacceptable.

With declining public trust, complex regulation, and heightened scrutiny, the Pub Test helps boards and executives sense‑check whether their actions align with community expectations, ethical norms, and the spirit—not just the letter—of the law. It forces decision‑makers to consider transparency, fairness, and reputational impact in plain language, ensuring that governance choices remain grounded in what an ordinary, reasonable person would view as fair and responsible.

The pub test compliments formal frameworks by keeping organisations connected to the values of the people they serve.

# data[].attributes.body
I voted “yes” on whether the Pub Test is still appropriate. As someone who works in Compliance, I still find myself asking, “If someone read this in the newspaper, what would they think?”. It continues to have value as a reputational sense‑check, particularly in today’s environment where decisions are judged in real time. With the prevalence of social media, whistleblowing platforms and investigative journalism, issues can be rapidly amplified and public trust can erode very quickly.

That said, it doesn’t work as a standalone governance tool, the 'pub' itself changes over time, and decisions can always be 're-judged' through the lens of hindsight bias once outcomes or additional information is know. Public opinion is also not always informed by industry nuances, which can be challenging when complex decisions must be made which at the time may be ethically considered and compliant but later could be unacceptable as societal expectations evolve. The pub test is a can surface discomfort with decision making but should never replace proper legal, risk and compliance analysis.

# data[].attributes.headline
When might the pub test be most effective? 

# data[].attributes.subject
When might the pub test be most effective? 

# data[].attributes.body
My reflection as someone who has worked extensively in tax payer funded organisations - either in government itself or in gov funded NFPs - is that the pub test can be a useful reality check when you are either a) the financial steward of taxpayers funds, or b) using those funds that could alternatively be applied for many other (equally worthy) purposes. It's not the single test on which you base decisions, but can be a way of reflecting on potential courses of action, and ensuring that these don't just reflect your personal norms/expectations but also those of the people you are working with.

# data[].attributes.body
I've voted yes although it comes with some reservations. Having worked in government for many years, the "pub test", or the "Herald Sun test" (as one boss liked to refer to it) resonates with me. It asks us to question if our actions or decisions are likely to be seen as defensible, or fair and reasonable, if made public and considered by a third party. I think this is still a valid question to ask as it goes to the impact of our decisions on others/the general public/customers and the potential impacts on standing, reputation and trust. However, it is simplistic in that it assumes all people have a certain or similar level of knowledge and understanding of an issue, similar preferences, priorities etc and so there is some conformity in the way that they will respond to issues (eg. no biases or prejudices). But I think the result of a pub test in one area might be different to one in another on certain issues! How many people really understand the science of climate change, but they will still have a strong opinion about whether government should take certain action or not. There are many wicked or complex issues in the world (especially when it comes to policy development), where there may be no right or wrong answer, so the pub test certainly cannot be the only lens we use, but it can still be helpful in evaluating if others might see our decision as being a 'good one'.

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst I chose No as my response to this question, it did envoke some deep thought and contemplation.  I admit to being caught up on the term 'appropriate' - whether I think it's appropriate to place any weight for decision making process of politicians on behalf of the entire nation on 'the pub test' or not?  If I can quote Socrates with his statement that "democracy is the the worst form of government" whereby it is only the leisure class who can afford the time to debate within the caucus as, the common man, or the pub patron in this instance, is far too busy and therefore constrained, by their need to eek out a living to raise their head to even contemplate their own position in society let alone how a policy might affect them in their daily lives.  Moreover, whats the measureable criteria that deems this regular 'pub dweller' as the ideal testing subject or environment even, for any policy decision?  It seems somewhat an outdated oversimplified methodology and contrary to the import of the propostion at hand.  There is also the argument that Australians in general lack even the basic knowledge of how their own government processes are affected even suffering from 'polical fatigue' dur to the three year term of elected governments, and therefore asking the average man in the pub as a litmus test, would not be the best approach.  However, with a more cynical lens, this might be part of the cunning plan, as the pub test may have strayed well past Howards initial meaning, whereby he might enquire of the common man in the average Australian pub about a certain idea or proposed policy, to its intent somewhat drifted with the likes of Morrison who, seemed to use the term more literally and campaigned using the pub test as a deliberate strategy, not to test his intended policies (as there were none) but rather how well he managed to relate to the man in the pub and, how naturally he held a beer in his hand whilst smiling for selected media outlets.  Further to my argument against; the fact that I still can not find a single voter who can explain to me what a Franking Credit is, and how they benefit them seeing as this was one of the things they voted for it!  I've even had someone try and explain them away as something to do with an emissions trading scheme!

That said however, despite landing in the 'No' camp, I do believe in the principle that the common man should be consulted and educated on government policy as much as possible and, at any opportunity so they know what/who they are voting for.  Further, if it is executed genuinely as Howard originally described - with integrity, it could be a strong message rather than diluted to a meer politcal popularist stunt, as Morrison has exampled.  So, to my mind, 'the pub test' is not just a matter of is it an ethical concept to use such a process as a way to test out a political idea on whether it might be popular, or good for the people, it also relies on being done in an ethical manner with integrity and not just purely of grandstanding or as a media opportunity.  Otherwise - how can it be a test at all?  The answer is - it simply can't be.  I do think that 'the personal is political', and the common man being exposed to politics at their own level and in their daily lives at the very least, will encourage discourse among the group long after the politician has debarted - said the optimist.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.question
Do you think the ‘Pub Test’ approach is appropriate in today’s governance environment?